On Fri, 25 Jan 2002, Bob K wrote:
> > I could be mistaken, but it would seem to me that the number of
> > individuals that really want to deny all traffic to and from their
> > machine(which is the current result of setting firewall_enable to no)
> > is relatively small.
>
> If the variable name
On Fri, 25 Jan 2002, Mike Meyer wrote:
> Patrick Greenwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> types:
> > On Fri, 25 Jan 2002, Bob K wrote:
> > > The problem is that you're not taking into account the installed base of
> > > users who twiddle this knob. How many angry firewall admins will come
> > > into being
Patrick Greenwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> types:
> On Fri, 25 Jan 2002, Bob K wrote:
> > The problem is that you're not taking into account the installed base of
> > users who twiddle this knob. How many angry firewall admins will come
> > into being when the behaviour suddenly stops being, "don't lo
On Fri, Jan 25, 2002 at 05:40:04PM -0800, Patrick Greenwell wrote:
>
> > The problem is that you're not taking into account the installed base of
> > users who twiddle this knob. How many angry firewall admins will come
> > into being when the behaviour suddenly stops being, "don't load any
> >
On Fri, 25 Jan 2002, Bob K wrote:
> The problem is that you're not taking into account the installed base of
> users who twiddle this knob. How many angry firewall admins will come
> into being when the behaviour suddenly stops being, "don't load any
> firewall rules" and starts being, "disable
On Fri, Jan 25, 2002 at 05:05:48PM -0800, Patrick Greenwell wrote:
>
> You know, I continue to be amazed at the attitude that says that things
> should be kept counter-intuitive and anyone who doesn't like it that way
> is ignorant. What possible benefit is there in perpetuating mislabeled
> beha
On Fri, 25 Jan 2002, Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
> > > It only works the way
> > > complained about when you build your own custom kernel with IPFIREWALL
> and
> > > not with IPFIREWALL_DEFAULT_TO_ACCEPT. At that point, I think the admin
> > > needs to educate one self. I prefer to leave it as i
> On Fri, Jan 25, 2002 at 07:51:33AM -0600, Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
> > It works as expected using the GENERIC kernel.
>
> Because when there is no firewall in the kernel and firewall_enable is
> not set to "YES", there is no firewall loaded. This behavior would not
> change. In fact this can
I've done at least 10 installs of the different RCs and I haven't
run into this, so I'm very interested in finding a reproducible case.
Most of my installs were also of "X-developer". Has anyone else seen
this? Is there anything special about the hardware you installed to?
- Murray
On Fr
On Fri, Jan 25, 2002 at 07:51:33AM -0600, Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
> It works as expected using the GENERIC kernel.
Because when there is no firewall in the kernel and firewall_enable is
not set to "YES", there is no firewall loaded. This behavior would not
change. In fact this can be an argume
On Friday, 25 January 2002 at 11:38:31 +0100, Martin Blapp wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Here is the config, before I exchanged da0 with a raw disk.
>
> # Vinum configuration of , saved at Fri Jan 25 09:44:32 2002
> drive vinumdrive0 device /dev/da0e
> drive vinumdrive1 device /dev/da1e
> drive vinumdrive2 d
On Fri, 25 Jan 2002, Jordan Hubbard wrote:
> Unfortunately, this one seems to be in the "heisenbug" category which
> is why I didn't flag it as a show-stopper when it started getting
<...>
> I also believe it's actually a kernel panic or hard hang vs sysinstall
if it's a kernel panic, wouldnt y
On Fri, Jan 25, 2002 at 10:51:55AM +0100, Harald Schmalzbauer wrote:
> And another interesting point: On what machines are thy compiled? I have only
> PIIs and this would take weeks!
They're built on a cluster of 8 Pentium III's. A full build of the
entire package set takes about 12-20 hours,
13 matches
Mail list logo
